TEA PARTY

In light of the House of Representatives changing hands in US Congress, I thought I’d write what I think about the Tea Party, the grass-roots movement from the right of the Republican Party that has risen up into a media phenomenon in the last 18 months.

The media has chosen to represent them as a scary crackpot group with crazy ideas – and the Tea Party has given them excellent reason to do so. When the movement endorses such candidates as Christine “I am not a witch” O’Donnell and Sharron “destroy all social security” Angle, it is difficult to see past them. It is even harder when some members are quite clearly racist and horrifically narrow-minded – Glen Beck’s devout Christianity (shared by a significant proportion of members) as well as the Church’s backing of the movement as a way of “getting Islam out of the White House” provides examples of extremist views that the liberal media laps up to denounce the Tea Party.

However, the Tea Party is a movement, not a political party. In this way, it incorporates many views without a specific agenda; extreme social conservatives can align with disillusioned Democrats as a by-product of the disconnect felt by the American people. The Tea Party is predominantly filled by fiscal conservatives – people who believe that if their domestic books need to be balanced, then the least government can do is do the same; they are highly opposed to wide-scale public spending. 55% of Tea Party members are women, the traditional domestic accountants in US culture, and the backbone that binds the few psychos with the large number of sensible unhappy middle-class Americans are ‘pocket-book issues’ plain and simple.

The Tea Party can be seen as a reaction to the Obama administration, a democratic protest against his public spending and left-leaning policies. Although to call his actions “socialist” or even “unconstitutional” is ridiculous, it is true that his financial interventions are too much for America. To UK citizens, the outcry about Obamacare is alien to our culture, but the Tea Party have a point. We must remember that although we share a language with the USA, we do not share a culture, and the American way is a way of small government and a lot of almost utilitarian freedom for its citizens. The Tea Party do not see healthcare as evil – they do not in general even decry further regulation of healthcare systems – they just do not want to be told what to do. As a nation of grafters and entrepreneurs, any form of government intervention is met with suspicion, a suspicion that as members of the most successful liberal democracy in the world they are fully entitled to.

Although bad for Obama, the main victim of the Tea Party is arguably the establishment Republican Party – it is a fact that any shift to an extreme makes a party less electable. The factional divide of the Republicans has exposed huge weaknesses in their opposition to the present administration, at a time when they should be strong and united; without the split the Republicans would seem a preferable alternative to the mojo-less Obama.

As I see it, it is good that the Republicans have won the House in terms of democracy – the people are generally unimpressed by the last two years and have used their right of franchise to convey this. However, as the Tea Party has simultaneously weakened both mainstream US parties, 2012 looks to be a year of distinctly weak Presidential candidates. Who will stand for the Republicans is unclear; it is said that Tea Party poster girl Sarah Palin is not taking the traditional actions of an expected candidate and is unlikely to stand. Whoever does, the race between the Tea Party and the establishment Republican will be an interesting one – watch this space.